Subject: Re: [Netconf] Calrification: confirm WG consensus on potential new WGwork-item:notification

From: "Alexander Clemm (alex)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:33:19 -0800

Content-TransfeFrom [email-masked]  Mon Dec  1 10:33:26 2008
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:33:19 -0800
From: "Alexander Clemm (alex)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>, "Netconf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Calrification: confirm WG consensus on potential new
	WGwork-item:notification
Content-Transfer-Encor-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [email-masked]

I do support the draft-chisholm-netconf-not-content-00.txt, but clearly
this goes beyond a minimal but aims at a comprehensive approach.  I can
see the reasoning that we should not distract the working group and
focus only on one thing at a time.  With that in mind I do support the
decision to postpone this work.  

That being the case, I am skeptical regarding the suggestion to still
define "urgently needed" notifications now.  Besides the obvious
question which ones are urgently needed, there might be the risk that
they will result in a "special" that does not align too well with
whatever is defined later.  I'd rather have us not address notification
content at all at this point, instead of ending up with a half-solution
for some scenarios that ends up not really being helpful at all.  In
other words, I do not support a work item of "urgent" notification
content.   

--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF)
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 3:36 AM
To: Netconf
Subject: [Netconf] Calrification: confirm WG consensus on potential new
WGwork-item:notification

Dear Netconf WG participants,

It seems that some people who expressed their opinion in our sesion at 
IETF73
are changing their minds. And some people who did express their opinion
are
doing so again here on the mailing list.

Since we only counted the number of people in favor or against this 
work-item
and since we did NOT write down names, it becomes difficult to judge
(rough) consensus. So to make that easier, we ask EVERYONE to
express their opinion on the mailing list again, ALSO those who already
did
so at our session in Minneapolis.

Bert and Mehmet

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
To: Netconf
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 6:56 PM
Subject: [Netconf] confirm WG consensus on potential new WG 
work-item:notification

WG participants,

At our NetConf Session at IETF73, the people in the room expressed
strong
support for the following statements:

  - We do not want to define extensive Notification content NOW
  - We just want to define content for notifications that we URGENTLY
    need now (within the next year). That is one or two notifications
  - Less urgent notification content we can define once the NETMOD
    results become available

The WG chairs consider this to be WG consensus. If anyone on the mailing
list does not agree, please speak up before Dec 3rd 2008.  That is one
week.
We want to try and get updated charter to IESG before X-mas.

The WG chairs do not want to consider
draft-chisholm-netconf-not-content-00.txt
as a starting point. The reason being that it wants to do much more than
the
minimal approach that is expressed above.

The WG chairs will propose/draft new charter text that we will circulate
for consensus checking. Once we have such a draft text, we will also
call for volunteers to become editors of the document.

Bert and Mehmet 

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

ding: 7bit
Sender: [email-masked]
Errors-To: [email-masked]

I do support the draft-chisholm-netconf-not-content-00.txt, but clearly
this goes beyond a minimal but aims at a comprehensive approach.  I can
see the reasoning that we should not distract the working group and
focus only on one thing at a time.  With that in mind I do support the
decision to postpone this work.  

That being the case, I am skeptical regarding the suggestion to still
define "urgently needed" notifications now.  Besides the obvious
question which ones are urgently needed, there might be the risk that
they will result in a "special" that does not align too well with
whatever is defined later.  I'd rather have us not address notification
content at all at this point, instead of ending up with a half-solution
for some scenarios that ends up not really being helpful at all.  In
other words, I do not support a work item of "urgent" notification
content.   

--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF)
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 3:36 AM
To: Netconf
Subject: [Netconf] Calrification: confirm WG consensus on potential new
WGwork-item:notification

Dear Netconf WG participants,

It seems that some people who expressed their opinion in our sesion at 
IETF73
are changing their minds. And some people who did express their opinion
are
doing so again here on the mailing list.

Since we only counted the number of people in favor or against this 
work-item
and since we did NOT write down names, it becomes difficult to judge
(rough) consensus. So to make that easier, we ask EVERYONE to
express their opinion on the mailing list again, ALSO those who already
did
so at our session in Minneapolis.

Bert and Mehmet

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
To: Netconf
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 6:56 PM
Subject: [Netconf] confirm WG consensus on potential new WG 
work-item:notification

WG participants,

At our NetConf Session at IETF73, the people in the room expressed
strong
support for the following statements:

  - We do not want to define extensive Notification content NOW
  - We just want to define content for notifications that we URGENTLY
    need now (within the next year). That is one or two notifications
  - Less urgent notification content we can define once the NETMOD
    results become available

The WG chairs consider this to be WG consensus. If anyone on the mailing
list does not agree, please speak up before Dec 3rd 2008.  That is one
week.
We want to try and get updated charter to IESG before X-mas.

The WG chairs do not want to consider
draft-chisholm-netconf-not-content-00.txt
as a starting point. The reason being that it wants to do much more than
the
minimal approach that is expressed above.

The WG chairs will propose/draft new charter text that we will circulate
for consensus checking. Once we have such a draft text, we will also
call for volunteers to become editors of the document.

Bert and Mehmet 

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:18:41 -0800

> other words, I do not support a work item of "urgent" notification

I do not mind postponing the work either, but I do see the options
as half-solution or kitchen sink of notifications.  Sooner or later,
we are going to want to define a constrained eventClass (enumeration),
and an unconstrained extendedEventClass (identityref).  Clearly,
a standard <config-changed> notification is better for applications
than N proprietary versions.  These 3 small pieces to the CM
picture will not likely be impacted by further refinements of
the YANG language.

> --- Alex

Andy

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:18:41 -0800

Andy

---

From: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:00:11 +0100

Your WG chairs have come to the conclusion that we do NOT HAVE (even ROUGH) consensus
as to what to do in this space. So for now we are putting aside this topic and will not
include it in our considerations for new work.

If people still feel this is urgently needed, they can continue to write indivudial I-Ds that
show what sort of things they want to do.

Bert and Mehmet.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) 
  To: Netconf 
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:35 PM
  Subject: [Netconf] Calrification: confirm WG consensus on potential new WGwork-item:notification

  It seems that some people who expressed their opinion in our sesion at 
  IETF73
  are changing their minds. And some people who did express their opinion are
  doing so again here on the mailing list.

  express their opinion on the mailing list again, ALSO those who already did

  Bert and Mehmet

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
  To: Netconf
  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 6:56 PM
  Subject: [Netconf] confirm WG consensus on potential new WG 
  work-item:notification

  WG participants,

  At our NetConf Session at IETF73, the people in the room expressed strong
  support for the following statements:

  The WG chairs consider this to be WG consensus. If anyone on the mailing
  list does not agree, please speak up before Dec 3rd 2008.  That is one week.
  We want to try and get updated charter to IESG before X-mas.

  The WG chairs do not want to consider
  draft-chisholm-netconf-not-content-00.txt
  as a starting point. The reason being that it wants to do much more than the
  minimal approach that is expressed above.

  Bert and Mehmet

---

From: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:00:11 +0100

Bert and Mehmet.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) 
  To: Netconf 
  Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:35 PM
  Subject: [Netconf] Calrification: confirm WG consensus on potential new WGwork-item:notification

  Bert and Mehmet

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
  To: Netconf
  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 6:56 PM
  Subject: [Netconf] confirm WG consensus on potential new WG 
  work-item:notification

  WG participants,

  Bert and Mehmet